CRNA SR Oct2012 janke variance 4d - Hometown Planning€¦ · GLENCOE, MN 55336 District n/a Brief...

Corinna Township 4(d) - 1 October 9, 2012

STAFF REPORT

Application: Variance to attach 3.5 acres of land classified as farmland of statewide importance from Parcel 206000093100 to Parcel 206000093104 resulting in a 6 acre parcel (max. 2.5 acres allowed).

Applicant: Cynthia Janke/Bruce Ahsenmacher

Agenda Item: 4(d) Background Information:

Location: o Property Location: 10154 State Highway 24 NW o Sec/Twp/Range: 9-121-27 o Parcel Number(s): 206000093100 and 206000093104

Zoning: General Agricultural (AG)

Lot size: 2.5 acres (existing lot to which approximately 3.5 acres would be added)

Existing Impervious Coverage:

Buildings: Approx. 2,800 sq ft (2.6%)

Total: Approx. 11,000 sq ft (10.1%)

Proposed Impervious Coverage:

Buildings: Approx. 2,800 sq ft (2.6%)

Total: Approx. 11,000 sq ft (10.1%)

Septic System Status: The existing sewer system would not be affected by this application, except to provide additional space for a future sewer system.

Natural Features:

Floodplain: The property is not within an identified floodplain.

Bluff/Steep Slopes: The property does not contain any bluffs or steep slopes.

Wetlands: There do not appear to be any wetlands on the property that would impact the proposal.

Proposal: When the applicants (Janke) lot was created in 2006 as an entitlement division, it was limited by Wright County to 2.5 acres, as this was the maximum allowed by ordinance for land classified as “farmland of statewide importantce” (the application at the time was for a larger split. The application is to enlarge the 2.5 acre parcel by adding another approximately 3.5 acres of land from the adjacent parcel. While the request is essentially a repeat of the request from 2006, it is apparent from aerial photos and the applicant’s statements that the 3.5 acres of adjacent land has not been farmed since at least 2008 and perhaps back to 2006 when the home was placed on the 2.5 acre parcel.

Requested Variance:


Variance to attach 3.5 acres of land classified as farmland of statewide importance to an existing 2.5 acre parcel - resulting in a 6 acre parcel (max. 2.5 acres allowed).

Applicable Statutes/Ordinances: Minnesota Statutes

462.357 (2011) OFFICIAL CONTROLS: ZONING ORDINANCE.

Subd. 6.Appeals and adjustments. Appeals to the board of appeals and adjustments may be taken by any

affected person upon compliance with any reasonable conditions imposed by the zoning ordinance. The board of appeals and adjustments has the following powers with respect to the zoning ordinance:

(1) To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative officer in the enforcement of the zoning ordinance.

(2) To hear requests for variances from the requirements of the zoning ordinance including restrictions placed on nonconformities. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with the ordinance. The board of appeals and adjustments or the governing body as the case may be, may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed under the zoning ordinance for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or governing body as the case may be, may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one family dwelling as a two family dwelling. The board or governing body as the case may be may impose conditions in the granting of variances. A condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance.

Corinna Township/Wright County Regulations 502. APPEALS AND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT


502.4 Findings

(1) The Board of Adjustment must review variance petitions and consider the following factors prior to finding that a practical difficulty has been presented. The applicant must provide a statement of evidence addressing the following elements to the extent they are relevant to the applicant’s situation. (a) The granting of the variance will be in harmony with the County

Land Use Plan. (b) The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable

manner not permitted by an official control. (c) The plight of the owner is due to circumstances unique to the

property not created by the owner. (d) The proposal does not alter the essential character of the locality. (e) The practical difficulty cannot be alleviated by a method other

than a variance; and. (f) The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the

environmental quality of the area. The Board of Adjustment may grant a variance if it finds that all of the above factors have been established. The Board of Adjustment must not approve a variance request unless the applicant proves all of the above factors and established that there are practical difficulties in complying with official controls. The burden of proof of these matters rests completely on the applicant. 604. GENERAL AGRICULTURE AG 604.6 Requirements and Standards for Dwellings and Permitted Divisions

(4) Entitlement Divisions

If a landowner chooses to use an entitlement on an eligible lot of record or quarter-quarter section as a division, the division and remainder of the eligible parcel shall be subject to the following requirements.

(c) Lot Standards

(3) Maximum lot size shall be:

- Five (5) acres for divisions from eligible lots of record

- Two and one-half (2.5) acres for divisions from eligible quarter-quarter sections if the building site is undeveloped cropland classified as prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance as defined in the Land Use Plan


- Ten (10) acres in all other instances

Staff Findings: The following findings of fact are presented by Staff for consideration by the Board of Adjustment:

1) Will the granting of the variance be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Corinna Township Land Use (Zoning) and/or Subdivision Ordinance?

a) Yes. The spirit and intent of the ordinance restricting entitlement divisions to 2.5 acres in areas with farmland of statewide importance is to preserve land for farming purposes. While the 3.5 acres of land itself may be productive for farming, it has not been farmed since shortly after the 2.5 acre parcel was split in 2006. Further, given the layout of the adjacent field and the presence of two small lots to the west, it appears unlikely that the 3.5 acres would be farmed efficiently. In some sense, it may be more likely to be farmed on a small scale as part of a 6 acre parcel that it would as part of the adjacent 35 acres.

2) Will the granting of the variance be consistent with the Corinna Township Comprehensive Plan?

Yes. The Comprehensive Plan states the following as a goal: “Encourage preservation of productive farm operations”

Staff Comment: As noted in the comment above, this 3.5 acres is unlikely to be farmed efficiently as part of the 35 acre parcel it is part of now. As such, it may be more likely to be farmed – on a small-scale – as part of a 6 acre parcel than the larger parcel.

3) Is the proposed use of the property reasonable?

Yes. The use of the property would remain residential. The use of the 3.5 acres being added would be for wildlife management purposes, according to the applicant.

4) Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner?

Yes. The need for the variance is created partly by the layout of other properties in the immediate area and the shape of the field adjacent to the 3.5 acres.

5) Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality?

No. The character of the neighborhood (a mix of residential, farm and business) would remain unchanged.

6) Are economic considerations the only reason the applicant cannot meet the strict requirements of the ordinance?

No. The need for the variance is created largely by the layout of adjacent lots and the field on the land to the north.


7) Could the practical difficulty be alleviated by a feasible method other than a variance (taking into account economic considerations)?

No. The only other way to attach land to this parcel is to attach an entire farm field. That would not be feasible in this case as it would not make the 3.5 acres in question any more farmable than it is now.

8) Will the granting of the variance adversely affect the environmental quality of the area?

No. The lot line adjustment would have no significant impacts on the environment.

Board of Adjustment Direction: The Board of Adjustment may approve the variance request, deny the request, or table the request if the Board should need additional information from the applicant. If the Board should approve or deny the request, the Board should state the findings which support either of these actions.

Staff Recommendation: Based on the findings of fact and discussion listed above, Staff recommends that the variance be approved as presented.

Wright County, MN

Date Created: 10/2/2012

Parcel ID 206000093104 Sec/Twp/Rng 9-121-27 Property Address 10154 STATE HWY 24 NW

ANNANDALE

Alternate ID n/a Class 201 - RESIDENTIAL Acreage n/a

Owner Address JANKE,CYNTHIA F 620 16TH ST E GLENCOE, MN 55336

District n/a Brief Tax Description Sect-09 Twp-121 Range-027 UNPLATTED LAND CORINNA TWP TH PRT OF LTA OF GOV LT2 DES COM SE COR OF SD

GOV LT2 TH N02D00'44"E ALG E LN OF SD GOV LT2 1307.01FT TO NE COR OF GOV LT2 TH N88D00'51"W ALG N LN OF GOV LT2 54.12FT TO NE COR OF SD LTA BEING POB TH S02D00'44" W ALG E LN OF SD LTA 315.57FT TO SE COR OF SD LTA TH S73D02' 07"W ALG SLY LN OF SD LTA 539.12FT TO NELY LN OF MNDOT R/W PLAT NO.86-88 TH N35D00' 50"W ALG SD NELY LN 69.42FT TO A LN 66FT NWLY MSD AT R AGL TO &PAR/W SD SLY LN OF LTA TH N73D02'07"E ALG SD PAR LN 274.15FT TH N02D00'44"E PAR/W SD E LN OF LTA 245.78FT TH N73D02'07"E PAR/W SD SLY LN OF LTA 309.18FT TO POB (Note: Not to be used on legal documents)

Last Data Upload: 10/2/2012 9:53:25 AM

226 ft

Overview

Legend

Roads CSAHCL CTYCL MUNICL PRIVATECL TWPCL

City/Township Limitsc t Parcels

Ben Oleson

Callout

Approx. 3.5 acres (from 206000093100) to be added to existing 2.5 acre parcel (206000093104). Exact boundaries to be determined.

Ben Oleson

Callout

Existing 2.5 acres (Janke)

29 Comprehensive Plan

Corinna Township 4(e) - 1 October 9, 2012

STAFF REPORT

Application: Variance to construct a 10' x 25' water oriented accessory structure approximately 5 feet from a side lot line (min. 10 ft required). Proposed shed will replace an existing 7' x 12' shed.

Applicant: Victoria Morgan

Agenda Item: 4(e) Background Information:

Location: o Property Location: 9888 – 91st Street NW o Sec/Twp/Range: 16-121-27 o Parcel Number(s): 206063001050

Zoning: Urban/Rural Transition (R1) /Residential Recreation Shorelands (S-2) Overlay District, Clearwater Lake (General Development lake)

Lot size: Approximately 200 ft wide x 230 ft deep (46,000 sq ft)

Existing Impervious Coverage (based on aerial photos):

o Buildings: Approx. 3,800 sq ft (8.3%)

o Total: Approx. 9,400 sq ft (20.4%)

Proposed Impervious Coverage (based on aerial photos):

o Buildings: Approx. 3,800 sq ft (8.3%)

o Total: Approx. 9,500 sq ft (20.7%)

Septic System Status: The existing sewer system was installed originally in 1982 and found compliant in 1996. While the proposed variance should not impact the ability of the applicant to install a new sewer system, the existing sewer should be inspected again for compliance.

Natural Features:

Floodplain: The property appears to be close to an identified floodplain, if not in one.

Bluff/Steep Slopes: There is a steep slope leading down from the road to the lake, although the property flattens nearer the shoreline. The property probably contained a bluff originally, but the property has been significantly altered in 1981/1982 to create a terraced effect on the hill with large retaining walls. The proposed shed would be in the flat area at the bottom of the hill.


Proposal: The applicant is proposing to replace an existing 7’ x 12’ shed with a 10’ x 25’ water-oriented accessory strcture at the bottom of a steep hill. The new shed


would be no closer than 5 feet from the side lot line due to an existing motorized chair/tram leading down to the lake preventing the shed from being located much further away from the line. A small retaining wall would be constructed behind the new structure involving some limited excavation of soil. An existing gazebo in the middle of the lot near the lakeshore would be removed as part of this application.

Requested Variance(s):

Side Yard Setback: Variance to construct a 10' x 25' water oriented accessory structure approximately 5 feet from a side lot line (min. 10 ft required).








Corinna Township/Wright County Regulations 502. APPEALS AND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 502.4 Findings

(1) The Board of Adjustment must review variance petitions and consider the following factors prior to finding that a practical difficulty has been presented. The applicant must provide a statement of evidence addressing the following elements to the extent they are relevant to the applicant’s situation. (a) The granting of the variance will be in harmony with the County





environmental quality of the area. The Board of Adjustment may grant a variance if it finds that all of the above factors have been established. The Board of Adjustment must not approve a variance request unless the applicant proves all of the above factors and established that there are practical difficulties in complying with official controls. The burden of proof of these matters rests completely on the applicant.

605. URBAN/RURAL TRANSITIONAL R-1

605.5 Performance Standards

(3) Side Yard Regulations:

There shall be a minimum side yard of fifteen (15) feet for principal uses and ten (10) feet for accessory uses unless the building is housing livestock, then the setback is 100 feet for livestock buildings.

612.5 Shoreland Performance Standards

612.5 (1) General Performance Standard for Lakes Performance standards in shoreland areas are additional to standards of the primary zoning district. In case of a conflict, the stricter standard shall apply as well as any additional requirements if flood plain elevations have been established.


(a) General Development Standards:

Structure setback from NOHW 75 ft. Structure setback from Bluff 30 ft. Height 2 1/2 stories (35 ft.) Elevation of lowest floor above highest known water level 4 ft. Water Oriented Accessory Structure Setback from NOHW 10 ft.

The lot width may be reduced to 100 feet if public sewage treatment facilities are provided.



a) Yes. The spirit and intent of the ordinance (side yard setback) is to require some space between buildings and other improvements and the adjacent lot and to maintain space between structures. Its’ intent is also to maintain consistency from one property to the next in this setback.

The proposal would place a structure no closer than 5 feet from the side lot line (it may be further based on final construction plans). The adjacent lot does not currently have any buildings near the lot line and the owner apparently does not object to this variance request. Granting the variance will not impact consistency from one lot to the next in any significant way.


The Comprehensive Plan states the following as strategies to “protect, preserve, and enhance lake water quality”:

o Require on-site storm water retention and erosion-control plans for all new lakeshore development and redevelopment of existing sites, to ensure that storm water runoff is properly managed and treated before entering surface waters.

Staff Comment: The applicant has not submitted any specific erosion control plan, although the likelihood of any such erosion is relatively low. Silt fence should be used on the lakeside of the construction area.


o Seek ways to ensure that new development, landscaping, or other alterations on lakeshore properties preserve and/or provide for the planting of native trees and shoreline vegetation.

Staff Comment: The applicant has not submitted any specific vegetation plan associated with this application.

o Require the use of best management practices as outlined by the Minnesota DNR, University of Minnesota Extension, or other appropriate agencies during the development and re-development of all property in the Township to prevent erosion and sedimentation that eventually reaches area lakes and wetlands through ditches, direct runoff, or other means.

Staff Comment: See comments above.

o Limit the amount of grading and filling in the shoreland area so as to minimize the disturbance of soil and prevent erosion.

Staff Comment: The proposal will not involve very much grading or filling, except a small amount for the installation of a retaining wall at the back side of the proposed shed.


Yes. The applicant is requesting the construct a water-oriented accessory structure consistent with the maximum size allowed of 250 sq ft. Such a use is permitted by the ordinance.


Needs discussion. The need for the variance is created primarily by the location of the existing motorized chair/tram leading down to the lakeshore. Staff’s understanding is that this was installed by the current applicant many years ago. However, the variance is also partially created by the topography of the lot and some steeper slopes as you go to the south.


No. The site will remain in residential use and the structure will replace an existing, smaller structure that is even closer to the side lot line.


No. The topography of the lot and the location of the existing motorized chair/tram are factors leading to the request.


Needs discussion. It appears that the shed could be moved to more closely meet the 10 ft setback even without moving the tram. The tram could also theoretically be moved over, although this would likely require fairly significant expense and disturbance of the hill. IT also appears the shed could be moved closer to the lake


and over to meet the required setback, while still meeting the required 10 foot setback. This would likely involve constructing a longer deck/patio leading from the bottom of the tram to the shed to accomplish the applicants’ objectives.


No. With proper stormwater and erosion control practices, it is unlikely that the proposed use would create a significant environmental impact.


Staff Recommendation: Based on the findings of fact and discussion listed above, Staff would recommend a discussion as to whether the proposed shed could be constructed closer to the lake and at least 10 feet from the side lot line, as this appears a feasible option.

If that option is determined to be unfeasible, Staff would recommend approval of the requested variance with the following conditions:

1. The applicant shall provide sufficient evidence indicating that the shed is either not within a floodplain or will meet the required elevation requirements if it is.

2. The applicant must remove the existing 7’ x 12’ shed and the existing lakeside gazebo prior to construction of the new shed.

3. The new structure may not be used as heated living space or for sleeping quarters at any time.

4. Erosion and sedimentation control measures must be installed and maintained until the construction areas have been stabilized. These shall include at a minimum silt fences on downslope areas. Once disturbed areas are no longer being used for construction purposes, these shall be covered with mulch, erosion control blankets or other forms of temporary cover until vegetation is re-established.

Wright County, MN


Parcel ID 206063001050 Sec/Twp/Rng 16-121-27 Property Address 9888 91ST ST NW

ANNANDALE

Alternate ID n/a Class 201 - RESIDENTIAL Acreage n/a

Owner Address MORGAN,VICTORIA A REV TRUST %VICTORIA A MORGAN TRUSTEE 9888 91ST ST NW ANNANDALE, MN 55302

District n/a Brief Tax Description Sect-16 Twp-121 Range-027 RANSOM RIDGE Lot-005 Block-001

(Note: Not to be used on legal documents)


113 ft

Overview

Legend



Corinna Township 4(f) - 1 October 9, 2012

STAFF REPORT

Application: Variance to build a new home within 500 ft of an existing feedlot registered for between 10 and 499 animal units.

Applicant: Leo Zahler

Agenda Item: 4(f) Background Information:

Location: o Property Location: Lot 17, Block One of “Clearview Acres” (Klever Ave

NW) o Sec/Twp/Range: 17-121-27 o Parcel Number(s): 206030001170

Zoning: Urban/Rural Transition (R1) /Residential Recreation Shorelands (S-2) Overlay District, Clearwater Lake (General Development lake).

Lot size: Approx. one acre

Existing Impervious Coverage:

Buildings: None

Total: None

Proposed Impervious Coverage:

Buildings: None

Total: None

Septic System Status: Not applicable

Natural Features:


Bluff/Steep Slopes: The property does not contain any bluffs or steep slopes.


Proposal: The applicants one acre lot was platted as part of “Clearview Acres” in 1970. While Staff’s understanding is that the feedlot across the highway existed at that time, there was not a County ordinance prohibiting new homes from being constructed near feedlots. The County feedlot ordinance, which contains the required 500 ft setback requirement, was adopted in 1998. The applicant is seeking a variance to make their lot buildable, as it currently is entirely within the 500 ft setback requirement from a feedlot of 10-499 animal units.

Requested Variance:


Variance to build a new home within 500 ft of an existing feedlot registered for between 10 and 499 animal units.









(1) The Board of Adjustment must review variance petitions and consider the

following factors prior to finding that a practical difficulty has been presented. The applicant must provide a statement of evidence addressing the following elements to the extent they are relevant to the applicant’s situation. (a) The granting of the variance will be in harmony with the County





environmental quality of the area. The Board of Adjustment may grant a variance if it finds that all of the above factors have been established. The Board of Adjustment must not approve a variance request unless the applicant proves all of the above factors and established that there are practical difficulties in complying with official controls. The burden of proof of these matters rests completely on the applicant. Wright County Feedlot Ordinance

SECTION 6 ADMINISTRATION

6.006 Variances

A. A variance from the setback and area requirements of this Ordinance and the Wright County Zoning Ordinance may be granted when granting the variance would not result in adverse environmental effects and if the criteria for granting variances under Section 5.02.3 of the Wright County Zoning Ordinance can be met.

E. A variance may not be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning district in which the subject property is located.

SECTION 8 MINIMUM STANDARDS

B. Neighboring Properties

2. Post-Ordinance Feedlots

a. No permits for a new dwelling unit shall be issued within 500 feet of an existing registered and/or permitted animal feedlot or permanent manure storage area of ten to 499 animal units, nor within 1000 feet of an existing registered and/or permitted animal feedlot or permanent


manure storage area of 500 or more animal units unless a variance is obtained under Section 6.006 of this Ordinance.


1) Will the granting of the variance be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Wright County Township Land Use (Zoning) and/or Subdivision Ordinance?

Yes. The spirit and intent of the Wright County Feedlot ordinance appears to be to prevent conflict between feedlot and residential uses. In this particular case, the landowner requesting the variance has a lot that was platted for residential purposes in 1970 (presumably aware that there was a feedlot across the highway), and has several nearby lots where residential homes were constructed prior to the adoption of the 500 ft setback requirement in 1998. Given the number of homes already within 500 feet, and the highway running in between, it seems far less likely that there would be conflict between residences and the feedlot. Further, the ordinance anticipates that lots platted for residential pruposes will eventually be built on. To deny a landowner that ability, based on a change in the rules and knowing that the lot becomes essentially unuseable, is not in keeping with the spirit of the ordinance.


Yes. The Comprehensive Plan states the following as a goal: “Encourage preservation of productive farm operations” and the following as a strategy to achieve that goal:

“Actively support existing farming operations in the community by working to minimize land use conflicts between agricultural and non-agricultural development. Manage new growth carefully by maintaining sufficient space between agricultural and non-agricultural uses as much as possible.”

Staff Comment: See staff comment 1) above.


Yes. The use of the property would be single-family residential, as is the use for all surrounding properties on the same side of the highway in the same and different subdivisions.


Yes. The need for the variance is created primarily by the adoption of the Wright County Feedlot Ordinance in 1998 and the requirement that new homes be constructed 500 ft or more from a feedlot of 10 to 499 animal units. The platting of the property was in 1970, prior to the ordinance, and was not a situation created by the landowner.



No. The character of the neighborhood (a mix of residential and farm) would remain unchanged.


No. The need for the variance is created primarily by the adoption of an ordinance by the County restricting homes within 500 feet of feedlots with 10 to 499 animal units.


No. The entire parcel is within the required 500 ft setback. The only way to make use of the lot for residential purposes is to obtain a variance from the 500 ft setback requirement.


No. The building of a house on this property would have no additional impacts on environmental quality than any other home in the area.

Board of Adjustment Direction: The Board of Adjustment may approve the variance request, deny the request, or table the request if the Board should need additional information from the applicant. If the Board should approve or deny the request, the Board should state the findings which support either of these actions. Ultimately, this application will need to be approved by Wright County – as the ordinance requiring the setback is a Wright County ordinance not enforced by the Township. The Township will only be providing a recommendation to Wright County’s Board of Adjustment.

Staff Recommendation: Based on the findings of fact and discussion listed above, Staff recommends that the variance be approved as presented.

Wright County, MN


Parcel ID 206030001170 Sec/Twp/Rng 17-121-27 Property Address

Alternate ID n/a Class 206 - RES 1-3 UNITS Acreage n/a

Owner Address ZAHLER,LEO R 11365 89TH ST NW ANNANDALE, MN 55302

District n/a Brief Tax Description Sect-17 Twp-121 Range-027 CLEARVIEW ACRES Lot-017 Block-001 LT 17 BLK 1 EX TH PRT SHWN AS PARCEL 37A ON

MNDOT R/W PLAT NO.86-81 (Note: Not to be used on legal documents)


451 ft

Overview

Legend



Ben Oleson

Callout

Feedlot

Ben Oleson

Callout

Zahler property

Corinna Township 4(g) - 1 October 9, 2012

STAFF REPORT

Application: Variance to expand an existing dwelling approximately 85 feet and construct a new garage approximately 115 feet from the centerline of a state highway (130 feet required).

Applicant: Mike Dougherty

Agenda Item: 4(g) Background Information:

Location: o Property Location: 8228 State Highway 24 NW, Annandale o Sec/Twp/Range: 20-121-27 o Parcel Number(s): 206000202102

Zoning: Urban/Rural Transition (R1) /Residential Recreation Shorelands (S-2) Overlay District, Pleasant Lake (General Development lake)

Lot size: Approximately 5 acres

Existing Impervious Coverage (based on aerial photos):

o Buildings: Well within limits

o Total: Well within limits

Proposed Impervious Coverage (based on aerial photos):

o Buildings: Well within limits

o Total: Well within limits

Septic System Status: The applicant will be installing a new septic system.

Natural Features:


Bluff/Steep Slopes: There are no steep slopes or bluffs on the property.


Proposal: The applicant is proposing to convert their existing attached garage to living space, add a new side entry to the home and construct a new attached garage to the rear. All additions will be at least partially within the required 130 feet setback to the centerline of State Highway 24.

Requested Variance(s):

Road Centerline Setback: Variance to expand an existing dwelling approximately 85 feet and construct a new garage approximately 115 feet from the centerline of a state highway (130 feet required).









(1) The Board of Adjustment must review variance petitions and consider the following factors prior to finding that a practical difficulty has been


presented. The applicant must provide a statement of evidence addressing the following elements to the extent they are relevant to the applicant’s situation. (a) The granting of the variance will be in harmony with the County





environmental quality of the area. The Board of Adjustment may grant a variance if it finds that all of the above factors have been established. The Board of Adjustment must not approve a variance request unless the applicant proves all of the above factors and established that there are practical difficulties in complying with official controls. The burden of proof of these matters rests completely on the applicant.

604. GENERAL AGRICULTURE AG

604.5 Performance Standards

(2) Front Yard Regulations:

(a) Required Setback Distance

Required Setback Distance From Road Centerline

Road Class

130 State Highway 130 County Road State Aid 65 Local Street (Twp. Rd.) 25 From right of way of cul-de-

sac or approved “T” Staff Findings: The following findings of fact are presented by Staff for consideration by the Board of Adjustment:


Yes. The spirit and intent of the ordinance (road setback) for structures is presumably to help ensure the protection of those structures and motor vehicles from damage due to road maintenance activities, vehicles driving off the road, parking along-side roads or other such activities.


In some cases, the road setback is intended to help preserve open areas for potential future expansion of the road right-of-way should it every become necessary or desirable.

The proposal would involve new structures within this 130 ft setback, but no closer than the existing home and similar distance to many other homes all along this same stretch of State Highway 24. The situation will not be worsened by the construction of new additions and structures and state laws allowing for replacement of existing structures makes it very unlikely that the structures on other properties will ever meet the required setback in the foreseeable future.


The Comprehensive Plan does not directly address issues related to road setbacks. It does identify this area as suitable for residential uses, and as such, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

Several sections of the Comprehensive Plan that apply more indirectly include:

o Require on-site storm water retention and erosion-control plans for all new lakeshore development and redevelopment of existing sites, to ensure that storm water runoff is properly managed and treated before entering surface waters.

Staff Comment: The applicant has not submitted any specific erosion control plan, although the likelihood of any such erosion is relatively low. Silt fence should be used on the lakeside of the construction area.

o Seek ways to ensure that new development, landscaping, or other alterations on lakeshore properties preserve and/or provide for the planting of native trees and shoreline vegetation.

Staff Comment: The applicant has not submitted any specific vegetation plan associated with this application.

o Require the use of best management practices as outlined by the Minnesota DNR, University of Minnesota Extension, or other appropriate agencies during the development and re-development of all property in the Township to prevent erosion and sedimentation that eventually reaches area lakes and wetlands through ditches, direct runoff, or other means.

Staff Comment: See comments above.

o Limit the amount of grading and filling in the shoreland area so as to minimize the disturbance of soil and prevent erosion.

Staff Comment: The proposal will not involve unusual amounts of grading or filling.



Yes. The applicant is requesting to construct reasonable residential structures and additions to the property.


Yes. The homes and structures constructed along this stretch of Highway 24 were largely constructed prior to the current requirement for setbacks. The applicant is just purchasing this lot now and had no control over that situation.


No. The site will remain in residential use and the structures will be consistent with that use.


No. The development of the lot prior to the setback requirements is the main reason they cannot practically meet the requirements of the ordinance.


No. There is no way in which the applicant can add on to the existing house without a variance from the road centerline setback requirement.


No. With proper stormwater and erosion control practices, it is unlikely that the proposed use would create a significant environmental impact.


Staff Recommendation: Based on the findings of fact and discussion listed above, Staff would recommend approval of the application as presented. Staff recommends the following conditions of approval:

1. Erosion and sedimentation control measures must be installed and maintained until the construction areas have been stabilized. These shall include at a minimum silt fences on downslope areas. Once disturbed areas are no longer being used for construction purposes, these shall be covered with mulch, erosion control blankets or other forms of temporary cover until vegetation is re-established.

Wright County, MN


Parcel ID 206000202102 Sec/Twp/Rng 20-121-27 Property Address 8228 STATE HWY 24 NW

ANNANDALE

Alternate ID n/a Class 101 - AGRICULTURAL Acreage 4.99

Owner Address WIEGAND,BARBARA J 13211 STATE HIGHWAY 24 NW SOUTH HAVEN, MN 55382

District n/a Brief Tax Description Sect-20 Twp-121 Range-027 UNPLATTED LAND CORINNA TWP 4.99 AC PRT OF E40A OF GOV LT1 DES COM AT PT ON

W LN OF NE1/4 OF NW1/4 500FT S ON NW COR TH S0D40'W ALG W LN 735.2FT TH N76D23'E 361.2FT TH N0D40'E PAR/W W LN TO PT 500FT S OF N LN OF NE1/4 OF NW1/4 TH N89D3'W 350FT TO POB EX TH PRT SHWN AS PARCELS ON MNDOT R/W PLAT NO.86-52 (Note: Not to be used on legal documents)


113 ft

Overview

Legend



Date post:	16-Nov-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

CRNA SR Oct2012 janke variance 4d - Hometown Planning€¦ · GLENCOE, MN 55336 District n/a Brief...

Documents